Author: Kiril Moskovchuk
Published: February 9, 2017
Reading time: 2 minutes
This article is 5 years old.
Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down
This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.
The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.
The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.
Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.
If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.
All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.
Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.
When a company has multiple sites and is closing one of them, is it a redundancy situation for the workforce deployed at this site?
The established law so far appeared to confirm the simple answer: yes, it is a redundancy situation, unless the employees have a mobility clause in their employment contracts, on which the employer can rely and instruct relocation.
A recent Employment Tribunal case Kellogg Brown & Root (UK) Ltd v Fitton and Ewer the courts added another refinement: it would be open for the courts to look into whether the instruction to relocate issued under the mobility clause was fair. In this case, Mr Fitton and Mr Ewer worked at the site of Kellog in Greenford, Middlesex. The company then closed its site in Greenford and instructed both employees to relocate to its site in Leatherhead, Surrey in pursuance of the mobility clause. Both employees refused and were summarily dismissed for gross misconduct in refusing to obey a lawful instruction.
The Employment Tribunal found, confirmed on appeal, that the instruction to relocate from Greenford to Leatherhead, some 30 miles away, was unreasonable and the dismissal was therefore unfair. The case was decided on its specific facts and the outcome would have been apparently different if both sites had been nearer or in the same locality.